Thursday, December 20, 2012

Manson utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end. Bugliosi ALSO utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end. Both men knew full-well that "Helter Skelter" was nothing more than a tall tale.

The question becomes:
Which man accomplished a better outcome by cultivating and manipulating "Helter Skelter" for his audience? The answer to that question, should be self evident.

Having said all that:
The fact of the matter, is that WAY too much emphasis is placed on "Helter Skelter" in-general.

I don’t believe the jury bought into "Helter Skelter". Fact is... they didn't have to.
(It should be noted here, that the prosecution doesn't even have to present a motive).

The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced that Manson was NUTS... and the leader of this group. That’s all they needed. More specifically… the jury was convinced that Manson conspired to these murders... and beyond that… they most likely didn‘t care "why".

Look:
Bugliosi could have told the jury that Manson was completely crackers and communicating with space ships... and the jury STILL would have convicted Manson.
In fact… ANY motive theory that depicted Manson as “crazy, dangerous, and in-charge“, would have worked... because the jury was already convinced of those three elements, based on the defendant’s own actions.

Let's face it... Manson convicted himself. The trial was a circus. “The family” was acting like fools inside the courtroom, and out. “The family” demonstrated to the world, that Manson was their leader. The shaving of heads... the carving of "X"'s... the year-long sidewalk vigils... the crawling across town on hands and knees... (need I continue?)... collectively convinced the world that these people were NUTS… and Manson was the "head nut"! Manson even lunged at the judge. As I said... "crazy, dangerous, and in-charge".

Bottom line:
The jury was convinced that Manson "saw to it" (if you will) that people were killed, and that's all they cared about. They didn't give two shits about WHY a crazy man wanted people dead… they just wanted to see him behind bars.

Bugliosi convinced the jury that Manson was in-charge (with a lot of help from Manson)... and THAT'S why Manson is in jail. The "Helter Skelter" motive wasn’t a big factor. “Helter Skelter” was much more useful in the sale of books, than it ever was in the courtroom.
If anything, the jury convicted Manson in spite of "Helter Skelter".

I’m personally convinced that Manson was the “ringleader”… and my opinion has ZERO to do with “Helter Skelter” or Bugliosi’s book. I could care less about Bugliosi’s book.

I’m personally convinced of Charlie’s “leadership role” as a result of viewing countless hours of film footage, photos, and transcripts. I’ve inspected these types of media with my own eyes and ears. I've drawn my own conclusions, with my own common sense.

I've been everywhere the grass grows green... and I don't need Vincent T. Bugliosi, to tell me what time it is. Manson was a 34 year-old hardened criminal, dealing with suburban kids... primarily females. It doesn't take a genius to figure-out who was at the top of that totem pole.

C'mon folks...
How often do you see women crawling across town… and holding a (one year) "sidewalk vigil" for a “follower”???

I give the TLB jury the same credit. I believe the jury saw through to “the truth” with their own five senses. “Helter Skelter” was a small factor in their verdict.

Here’s where it gets a bit hazy. The next logical question becomes:
If you jail the right person, for the right crime(s)… does it matter if the premise (or motive) presented by the prosecution may have been inaccurate?
I mean (as a juror)… if you know someone is guilty… does the prosecution have to present the correct motive to you, for you to vote guilty?

Dilligaf could certainly answer that question, better than I… but my personal guess, is No… it shouldn’t matter. As a juror, you’re voting on the defendant‘s “guilt” related directly to the crime at hand… not on the prosecutor‘s ability to guess accurately at “motive“ or “motivation“.

Legalities aside… from an ethical standpoint… I suppose the answer to that question, relates strongly to how much of a “purist” one is.
Personally… I’d rather see a guilty man convicted despite an inaccurate motive presentation by the prosecution, than see him walk free on a technicality.
The prosecution doesn’t have a crystal ball… and remember, at the end of the day, they don’t have to present a “motive” at all.
Again… (as a juror) you’re voting on the guilt/innocence of the defendant in regards to the crime(s) specifically… not the legal skill of the prosecutor in determining motive.

I’m sure the TLB jurors are sleeping very well at night these days… and, I really don’t think they care what Manson’s “motive” was. (The jurors who are still alive, that is).

How anyone can possibly watch the “sidewalk vigil footage”… see the girls’ famous “crawl”… listen to the testimony of various “family members”… watch Hendrickson’s films… read the transcripts… witness Lynn and Sandy’s fanatical life-long devotion… and STILL remain unconvinced that Manson was the “ringleader”, is beyond my personal comprehension.

The “Slippie” conspired… he played his cards poorly during the trial (because he couldn‘t swallow his pride)… and now he’s in jail. End of story.

52 comments:

The question becomes:Which man accomplished a better outcome by cultivating and manipulating "Helter Skelter" for his audience? The answer to that question, should be self evident.

I don’t believe the jury bought into "Helter Skelter". Fact is... they didn't have to.(It should be noted here, that the prosecution doesn't even have to present a motive).

Let's face it... Manson convicted himself. The trial was a circus. “The family” was acting like fools inside the courtroom, and out. “The family” demonstrated to the world, that Manson was their leader. The shaving of heads... the carving of "X"'s... the year-long sidewalk vigils... the crawling across town on hands and knees... (need I continue?)... collectively convinced the world that these people were NUTS… and Manson was the "head nut"! Manson even lunged at the judge. As I said... "crazy, dangerous, and in-charge".

Bottom line:The jury was convinced that Manson "saw to it" (if you will) that people were killed, and that's all they cared about. They didn't give two shits about WHY a crazy man wanted people dead… they just wanted to see him behind bars.

Bugliosi convinced the jury that Manson was in-charge (with a lot of help from Manson)... and THAT'S why Manson is in jail. The "Helter Skelter" motive wasn’t a big factor. “Helter Skelter” was much more useful in the sale of books, than it ever was in the courtroom.If anything, the jury convicted Manson in spite of "Helter Skelter".

Dilligaf could certainly answer that question, better than I… but my personal guess, is No… it shouldn’t matter. As a juror, you’re voting on the defendant‘s “guilt” related directly to the crime at hand… not on the prosecutor‘s ability to guess accurately at “motive“ or “motivation“.

Legalities aside… from an ethical standpoint… I suppose the answer to that question, relates strongly to how much of a “purist” one is.Personally… I’d rather see a guilty man convicted despite an inaccurate motive presentation by the prosecution, than see him walk free on a technicality.The prosecution doesn’t have a crystal ball… and remember, at the end of the day, they don’t have to present a “motive” at all.Again… (as a juror) you’re voting on the guilt/innocence of the defendant in regards to the crime(s) specifically… not the legal skill of the prosecutor in determining motive.

I’m sure the TLB jurors are sleeping very well at night these days… and, I really don’t think they care what Manson’s “motive” was. (The jurors who are still alive, that is).

How anyone can possibly watch the “sidewalk vigil footage”… see the girls’ famous “crawl”… listen to the testimony of various “family members”… watch Hendrickson’s films… read the transcripts… witness Lynn and Sandy’s fanatical life-long devotion… and STILL remain unconvinced that Manson was the “ringleader”, is beyond my personal comprehension.

The “Slippie” conspired… he played his cards poorly during the trial (because he couldn‘t swallow his pride)… and now he’s in jail. End of story. ------------------------------------Great post Skynyrd. I agree with most of what you say. But, in my opinion, if a b.s. motive is given just to get a conviction there runs a risk of an innocent defendant being convicted. It happens all the time. Thank goodness for DNA technology and it's ability to set the wrongly convicted free.

I strongly agree that a motive isn't necessarily required and that Chucky pretty much convicted himself because of his antics and the women parroting his every insane move.

Yes, I agree he's right where he belongs. The b.s. motive in this case seemed to have worked.

I have to say that I think the jury was probably one of the most courageous juries we've ever had. They had to endure being sequestered from their families for months, listening to sickening testimony about murder, watch these nut jobs laugh and giggle about horrendous murder, listen to the constant objections by Kanarek which probably lengthened the trial by 2 months and endure threats on their own lives.

As Lynyrd said...they can all sleep good at night KNOWING they came to the right decision...guilty as charged.

And while we're on the subject, when Gypsy & Mary, et al, came up with the Hawthorne plans, in which they would hijack a plane and throw one passenger off each hour until Charlie was released, who do you think was in charge of that?

Tex?? No. They didn't care about Tex. It was all about Charlie. It always has been. Tex was never in charge of anyone, including himself. He was a worthless doofster who never really got anything right.

Matt, it's a lot easier to slaughter people on command than to control people. Running around like a maniac stabbing people is mindless. Controlling a group of people without even being in their presence..that's mind control.

Think about it....Tex wasn't in charge. Name one person who cared if he lived or died. Besides his mama, HA HA.

“My peace is in the desert or in the jail cell, and had I not seen the sunshine in the desert I would be much more satisfied with the jail cell over your society. Much more over your reality. And much more over your confusion.”

speaking of tex's mother she was so in denial of what her son was that even after his conviction she still bragged about him and told people he had "personality plus." someone should do a little a research on mama watson, maybe that's where his psychosis started.

A bit off topic but remember Gypsy in Manson '73? She talked about how they just reflect people back at themselves. I wonder how she would react if someone stabbed her and after they pulled out the blade said to her "I just reflected you back at yourself". This could apply to any of the more fanatical family members. Just a thought.

Charlie taught them to kill pigs for his helter Skelter trip. Charlie taught them to kill to save a brother. But Charlie sent them after the Tates and Labiancas because of Melcher and Kaufman's failure to get him an album contract.

>>>Beauders said: speaking of tex's mother she was so in denial of what her son was that even after his conviction she still bragged about him and told people he had "personality plus." someone should do a little a research on mama watson, maybe that's where his psychosis started.>>>

He was definitely a mama's boy. Could be that when he finally broke away from her he went haywire. After his arrest in Texas, his mommy brought him all kinds of "special food" for his distraught tummy. LOL.

"the land of the self-assured"???what a silly and childish thing to say. just because people hold strong and passionate opinions does not make them either self-assured or by your inference intractable.I have found the vast majority of people on this blog to be both strong minded AND open minded.As usual, with complainers, I suspect the problem lies with you.

I say, I say, you said a mouthful, Boss. Great post.The sad reality is that there will always be delusional zealots who for some unfathable reason want to paint Charlie Manson as an Innocent. It's beyond absurdity.We all know Charlie participated in both the Shea and Hinmann assaults. And I have always believed that by being the one who chose the LaBianca house, broke into it and tied them up that he, by the letter of the law, was as responsible for their ultimate demise as much as the actual killers.

But here's a question that I need to ask Mr. Dill.Manson admits for all to hear that he told the girls to do whatever Tex said AND to leave something witchy at Cielo. I am just wondering, if again by the letter of the law, it Manson admits as he has to giving both directions and instructions to the killers, doesn't that make him responsible for what ultimately happened even if the original intent was just robbery (which it wasn't clearly).

I don't know, at some point you'd like to believe that the insane "he didn't kill anyone" mantra would fade away.

I have been sitting back mulling over your post, and you handled it pretty well. But a couple of thoughts.

It is correct that it is not necessary to prove a motive, but it helps a jury to try to understand why someone did something. In a case like this, the crimes themselves were so brutal and opposite of what we believed was possible, the introduction of a motive was crucial. People do not want to know "just the facts", they want to know the why. it allows them to peak into the dark area of a person while still feeling good about themselves. Jurors take their role very serious and try their best to apply the law fairly, based upon the evidence. Motive is not evidence, but it is the glue that can bind a case together for a jury to understand.

There has been some comments here about motives being given thagt could result in an innocent person being convicted. No one wants to see an innocent person convicted, and if you consider the number of prosecutions that occur daily, the percentage of wrongful convictions is relatively small. Many times cases are overturned due to procedural or technical issues rather than actual guilt. That does not mean the defendent is innocent, it just means he should have played lotto as well, for he was lucky.

Prosecutors are held to a very high standard, and there are rules that both cousnel must follow. Whether it be the Rules of Evidence, the rules of Criminal Law, or Criminal Procedure, there are things that must be followed. It benefits no one, even the prosecutor if a case must be retried due to error. As such, it is incumbent upon all prosecutors to walk the line, play by the rules, and believe that in the end, the system works, for it does.We do not get to choose the cases per se, it is the criminal committing the crimes that ultimately decides that. We may have them assigned based upon experience, the type of case, etc., but the criminal always has the ability to make that decision based upon their actions. Just like the arrestee, don't want to get beaten or shot? Don't resist. It truly is that simple.

The Wooly Hophead did as much to convict himself as Bugliosi. Any prosecutor would be a fool to not allow the jury to see the antics of this caliber, as well as the co-defendents. A fair trial? DP cases are tried with such extreme caution and fairness that is automatically reviewed that any area of unfairness will result in the order of a possible new sentencing trial, or even a new trila for guilt. It is funny that when the believers of the Wooly Hophead crow about a fair trial, they never talk about his role in the verdict.

Leary, while there really is not a separate charge in a crime like this for someone giving, it is exactly the type of act that requires the use of a conspiracy theory. Remember, the Wooly Hophead can tell someone to do something, but he cannot force them and the law does not extend responsibility here. This was not a RICO case, though in today's world, that would be an interesting application. A criminal conspiracy for the furtherence of a criminal enterprise, benefitting the members of that organization, something to think about.

A bit off topic but remember Gypsy in Manson '73? She talked about how they just reflect people back at themselves. I wonder how she would react if someone stabbed her and after they pulled out the blade said to her "I just reflected you back at yourself". This could apply to any of the more fanatical family members. Just a thought.------------------------------------Oops! I meant Brenda, not Gypsy......

Doc, I finally figured out what was so strange about Gypsy. She doesn't swing her arms when she walks...just like Raquel Welch. HA HA.--------------------------------------Like she's carrying invisible luggage?

Well..... Today is the day after 12/21/12...... I know a family in Monterey County, CA that a couple of years ago sold all of their belongings of value including their house which was free and clear. Their goal was to blow through a half million dollars by 12/21/12 and before I moved away from there they had a pretty good start on it. I bet they're feeling pretty stupid right about now......Top o' The Muffin To Ya! Katie

The Col claims that Shorty was arrested on the Aug 16 Spahn Raid.Mr. Shea's name is not on the list of people who were arrested. It's hardly a debatable thing, as alot of happenings with this story are.Sure, Shorty might have been initally rounded up, but he was not arrested. I just don't get the Col's stand on this...he is, afterall, someone who supposedly knows and has studied much about this case.

FRIENDS

"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls." -- Tom G

"The simple and undeniable truth, is that Charlie and the gang were/are the biggest idiots, morons and imbeciles on the planet." -- Leary7

"Them fucking fruitcakes could not pour piss out of a boot, with the bottom written on it."--Harold True